Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

I love this:

will expose [climate scientist] to possible criminal charges for fraud over his ...global warming claims

... proof of a conspiracy ...

...stubborn secrecy ...

[climate scientist's] legal arguments are weak ...

... This makes farcical his doomsaying pleas...


... This makes farcical his doomsaying pleas...

GMAFB. Subject this article to a modi of critical thinking, and the rather pointed interpretation of the facts is evident.

This smacks of a politically motivated witch-hunt.

DOn't like the science? Take them to court. No wonder you love it. I am sure Yoni is jumping up and down clapping too.

American Tradition Ins ute’s Environmental Law Center is a public interest law firm dedicated to originating and supporting actions to protect against government overreach, restore a healthy relationship between responsibility to the environment and the free market essential to its protection, and to secure the Cons utional and other fundamental rights of citizens.

All that is missing are calls for burning Dr. Mann at the stake.

It is rather obvious who is politicizing the science, and it isn't Dr. Mann.

[RandomGuy]

Manny, this is the kind of revelation that undermines all your reams and reams of so-called scientific evidence of the existence of AGCC.

It’s the Thermometer, Stupid

destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.

damning new evidence

[skeptic chemist] ably demonstrates [climate scientist was wrong]

The Fatal False Assumption of Greenhouse Gas Effect Believers

After wading through the sewers of 9-11 conspiracy theory websites, the tone of the Climate Realists website is clearly parallel.

The "official government" explanation is clearly wrong.
The "official government" scientists are all clearly motivated by greed, and lying to us.
The "official government" theory has so many "fatal flaws" that only brainwashed morons would believe it.


I am sure they mildly hew to facts presented, but the obvious, stilted interpretation of those facts, and the very clear narrative being pushed should lead any logical person who subjects it to simple critical thinking to be deeply skeptical of their interpretations of events and how much credence to place on their claims about evidence.

Once again, fodder for the OP.

[Wild Cobra]

All that is missing are calls for burning Dr. Mann at the stake.

Your interpretation.

The problem is, nobody can recreate his results without lying in the data.

[RandomGuy]

This trial smacks of a witch-hunt

Your interpretation.

The problem is, nobody can recreate his results without lying in the data.

It is indeed my intepretation.

If the science and data were that bad, then there are forums and journals in which to publish something that might refute it, as has been attempted by critics. That seems to be a long story.

The fact that a well funded group with a rather clear political agenda is suing a scientist that the group disagrees with in court is a fact.

What would you call it, if it is not a witch-hunt?

[Yonivore]

Hey, RG; were they using the thermometer readings wrong or not?

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, RG; were they using the thermometer readings wrong or not?

Notice Manny never has anything relevant to actual facts to say either.

[Wild Cobra]

The fact that a well funded group with a rather clear political agenda is suing a scientist that the group disagrees with in court is a fact.

Getting to the truth is a political aganda?

What would you call it, if it is not a witch-hunt?

I call it trying to settle the facts of science.

Why doesn't Mann want to release important information associated with the peer review process?

[ElNono]

Notice Manny never has anything relevant to actual facts to say either.

Maybe he's not giving you details to make you think

[ElNono]

Getting to the truth is a political aganda?

You don't need to sue to get to the truth. You need to do research.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't need to sue to get to the truth. You need to do research.

That's the problem. The research was done, and cannot duplicate Mann's findings without giving one proxy 300 times the weighting of the others.

Are you now against FOIA requests?

[boutons_deux]

Canadian Arctic nearly loses entire ice shelf

Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.

The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say. Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes. The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life and changes the look of Canada's coastline.

"Recent (ice shelf) loss has been very rapid, and goes hand-in-hand with the rapid sea ice decline we have seen in this decade and the increasing warmth and extensive melt in the Arctic regions,"

Canada has the most extensive ice shelves in the Arctic along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island. These floating ice masses are typically 131 feet (40 meters) thick (equivalent to a 10-story building), but can be as much as 328 feet (100 meters) thick. They thickened over time via snow and sea ice ac ulation, along with glacier inflow in certain places.

The northern coast of Ellesmere Island contains the last remaining ice shelves in Canada, with an estimated area of 402 square miles (1,043 square kilometers), said Mueller.

Between 1906 and 1982, there has been a 90 percent reduction in the areal extent of ice shelves along the entire coastline,

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...l=true#display

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons...

So what?

It's climate change. Climate has been changing for millions of years before mankind ever learned how to make fire. It will continue to change long after we are gone.

[Yonivore]

You don't need to sue to get to the truth. You need to do research.

Unless those who have been doing the research are hiding the truth and have the protection of the IPCC and liberals.

Then you have to sue.

Well, looky here, that international body created a climate-related program that is a complete farce...

Clean-energy credits tarnished

Key grafs:

[The CDM] allows rich countries to offset some of their carbon emissions by investing in climate-friendly projects, such as hydroelectric power and wind farms, in developing countries. Verified projects earn certified emission reductions (CERs) — carbon credits that can be bought and sold, and count towards meeting rich nations’ carbon-reduction targets.

But a diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the CDM projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years.

“What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says.

I love it! Wikileaks...wasn't he on y'all's side?

[RandomGuy]

Hey, RG; were they using the thermometer readings wrong or not?

It's your conspiracy theory, your burden of proof, Yoni, not mine.

He who asserts must prove.

You have asserted the basis for these temperature readings are completely unusable due to some fatal flaw, despite that the scientists who use the sensors seem to think otherwise.

As a basis for this, you have pointed to a website with an obvious narrative to promote that seems highly likely to have left out important objective information that a reasonable, objective person might think relevant to reach a decision as to the veracity of the claim.

Not being intellectually honest yourself, this doesn't bother/occur to you. You appear to have assumed that you have gotten the entire story from this website whose narrative you obviously agree with, and that you have proved your assertion to a reasonable degree, when you have not.

In this, you are no different than the 9-11 nutters who find some article on a conspiracy website that claims to have found some "fatal flaw" in the "official story", and point to it as proof positive.

Unless you can find some objective substantiation/corroberation, you have, just like the 9-11 nutters, little more than an intellectual circle-jerk to back this up.

Get cracking.

[boutons_deux]

Boutons...

So what?

It's climate change. Climate has been changing for millions of years before mankind ever learned how to make fire. It will continue to change long after we are gone.

Some of us aren't expecting, accepting civilization to be "gone", esp not gone due to anthropogenic climate disasters.

Pre-scientific, pre-industrial, pre-electrified Europe struggled horribly during the mini-ice age in the Middle Ages, only a few 100 years ago, and with only a few 10s of millions Europeans. The same environmental stresses in the other direction (fireball earth, not snowball earth) would be a disaster for 300M+ Euros.

[ElNono]

That's the problem. The research was done, and cannot duplicate Mann's findings without giving one proxy 300 times the weighting of the others.

Are you now against FOIA requests?

A FOIA request isn't suing. If they're suing, it's definitely not a FOIA request. So which is it?

[ElNono]

Unless those who have been doing the research are hiding the truth and have the protection of the IPCC and liberals.

Then you have to sue.

Baloney. They can do their own research and publish their findings, so they're peer reviewed, just like anything else in science.

Nobody has a monopoly on climate research.

[Yonivore]

Baloney. They can do their own research and publish their findings, so they're peer reviewed, just like anything else in science.

Those that support the liberal, UN, IPCC position have been subsidized by billions of our tax dollars to tow the line.

Nobody has a monopoly on climate research.

No, but they have a monopoly on government and the bully pulpit from which to advance some positions while denigrating others.

That's why you hear all that carping about it being "settled science" whenever there's an opposing point of view.

I think the scientific community has been so corrupted by the Algore's of the world, they wouldn't know good climate science if it bit them in the ass.

[Yonivore]

A FOIA request isn't suing. If they're suing, it's definitely not a FOIA request. So which is it?

People have been know to have to force compliance with an FOIA request.

[ElNono]

Those that support the liberal, UN, IPCC position have been subsidized by billions of our tax dollars to tow the line.

Nothing prevents those that don't want to tow the line from doing the appropriate research.

No, but they have a monopoly on government and the bully pulpit from which to advance some positions while denigrating others.

Nonsense. Opposing views have had as much press to express their views.

Again, there's nothing preventing opposing views from doing their research and publishing their papers.

[ElNono]

People have been know to have to force compliance with an FOIA request.

More like opted to. So the FOIA was denied or didn't include the information sought.

[Wild Cobra]

Baloney. They can do their own research and publish their findings, so they're peer reviewed, just like anything else in science.

Nobody has a monopoly on climate research.

Yet if you aren't peer reviewed by one of the gatekeepers, nobody believes your research.

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono...

Did you read the linked material?

The data Mann used was asked to be seen. the university wanted money for their troubles. The money was paid. The data was not delivered, and now they are saying no. We effectively have a breech of contract situation. Now there is also A FOIA suit, but it had another letter in front of it. I forget what, without going back and reading it again.

[ElNono]

Yet if you aren't peer reviewed by one of the gatekeepers, nobody believes your research.

Not true. If your research is accurate and brings something new to the table, peers will review it and it will normally find it's way through mainstream publications. There's also plenty of people that self-publish.

If your research is garbage, then people will very likely skip right over it.

Who are these gatekeepers you keep talking about?

[ElNono]

ElNono...

Did you read the linked material?

The data Mann used was asked to be seen. the university wanted money for their troubles. The money was paid. The data was not delivered, and now they are saying no. We effectively have a breech of contract situation. Now there is also A FOIA suit, but it had another letter in front of it. I forget what, without going back and reading it again.

So it's a lawsuit to obtain his dataset. Why not use that money to try to replicate his findings and publish the results, whatever those might be? That's how science works.